Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz66]

https://metro.co.uk/2019/09/08/no-chance-eu-will-grant-another-brexit-delay-as-things-stand-france-says-10705599/

No chance EU will grant another Brexit delay ‘as things stand’, France says


https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/11753 ... -extension

The French foreign minister confirmed today that European Union would not grant Britain an extension beyond October 31st in current circumstances. Jean-Yves Le Drian said on Sunday that as things stand, a delay beyond the October 31 deadline would not be granted

If there are no more extensions given by the EU and the UK by law cannot leave the EU with a no deal Brexit on October 31st, does that then not become a stalemate? Normally under such conditions, one would think that article 50 would become void, no?

The UK law only requires that the government request an extension from the EU. It can not require the EU grant it and if the EU do not grant it then we no deal exit. That has been the case since the first extension was granted. As I see this it is a clear message from the French foreign minister that granting an extension just so Johnson (or anyone else) can just dickker around again for another three months only to end up in the same place and situation again, is not something that is particularly attractive to France or the EU in general. However if they believe that the granting of another extension will allow the UK to finally make decisions on the issue of how it wants to leave, like those I have already suggested, then I think one more extension would be offered. A no deal exit is damaging to everyone. Not to the same degree but to all none the less. The EU would need to believe that there is a realistic chance that granting another extension could avoid this bad for all outcome. That is not going to happen if Johnson is still in power.

Revoking article 50 is within the unilateral power and right of the UK alone. This has already been ruled on by EU court. The reason why the UK can revoke article 50 without any other EU member being able to challenge such a decision is because the UK, even within the EU is in fact sovereign. No other country or group of them can force it to stay in the EU nor can it force it to leave either, should it decide it wishes to remain, up to till the point it actually leaves. Extending article 50 can only be done with the consent of the EU to do so and that requires the individual consent of each and all member states (other then the UK of course). So any indivcidual EU member can veto the granting of an extension to article 50 - again because they are sovereign in this matter even as members of the EU.

[Kikapu]

https://metro.co.uk/2019/09/08/no-chance-eu-will-grant-another-brexit-delay-as-things-stand-france-says-10705599/

No chance EU will grant another Brexit delay ‘as things stand’, France says


https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/11753 ... -extension

The French foreign minister confirmed today that European Union would not grant Britain an extension beyond October 31st in current circumstances. Jean-Yves Le Drian said on Sunday that as things stand, a delay beyond the October 31 deadline would not be granted

If there are no more extensions given by the EU and the UK by law cannot leave the EU with a no deal Brexit on October 31st, does that then not become a stalemate? Normally under such conditions, one would think that article 50 would become void, no?

The UK law only requires that the government request an extension from the EU. It can not require the EU grant it and if the EU do not grant it then we no deal exit. That has been the case since the first extension was granted. As I see this it is a clear message from the French foreign minister that granting an extension just so Johnson (or anyone else) can just dickker around again for another three months only to end up in the same place and situation again, is not something that is particularly attractive to France or the EU in general. However if they believe that the granting of another extension will allow the UK to finally make decisions on the issue of how it wants to leave, like those I have already suggested, then I think one more extension would be offered. A no deal exit is damaging to everyone. Not to the same degree but to all none the less. The EU would need to believe that there is a realistic chance that granting another extension could avoid this bad for all outcome. That is not going to happen if Johnson is still in power.

Revoking article 50 is within the unilateral power and right of the UK alone. This has already been ruled on by EU court. The reason why the UK can revoke article 50 without any other EU member being able to challenge such a decision is because the UK, even within the EU is in fact sovereign. No other country or group of them can force it to stay in the EU nor can it force it to leave either, should it decide it wishes to remain, up to till the point it actually leaves. Extending article 50 can only be done with the consent of the EU to do so and that requires the individual consent of each and all member states (other then the UK of course). So any indivcidual EU member can veto the granting of an extension to article 50 - again because they are sovereign in this matter even as members of the EU.

Well, I am a little confused now.

I was under the impression that one of the laws passed by the parliament recently was to prevent the government from leaving the EU with a no deal Brexit , which the majority MPs had also voted the same when May was the PM, but now you are saying Erol, that the law that was passed last week was for BJ to only ask for an extension from the EU and not to be able to leave with a no deal Brexit.

[erolz66]

I was under the impression that one of the laws passed by the parliament recently was to prevent the government from leaving the EU with a no deal Brexit , which the majority MPs had also voted the same when May was the PM, but now you are saying Erol, that the law that was passed last week was for BJ to only ask for an extension from the EU and not to be able to leave with a no deal Brexit.

It is not within the unilateral power of the UK alone to 'stop a no deal exit'. All the UK parliament can do is require the government to request such an extension from the EU. The EU is not obliged to grant such. Indeed it can only grant such with the individual consent of each and every member state (except the UK of course). This is what Parliament forced TM to do. She asked the EU for an extension and they granted one. Meainf all remaining member states individually agreed to such. It is what this new law will require Johnson to do. Johnson has already suggested that they may try and pursue a strategy of fucking the EU up (by refusing to appoint a UK commissioner as they are required to do by law) as a means of 'encouraging' the EU to refuse such an extension. When TM was required to ask for the first extension there were reports that Farrage along with the likes of Bannon, had sought meetings with Orban with the specific agenda of trying to convince him to veto any such extension. These 'democratic' efforts by Farrage to bypass and thwart the will of the sovereign UK parliament by seeking the aid of a foreign power failed at that time.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/eu-ele ... sion-veto/

[Lordo]

let me explain, parliament has allowed manchild to go to the meetings on the 17th and 18th of october to get a deal. then whatever he has whether it is a deal or no deal then he must present it to parliament and if the parliament then does not vote for either no-deal or the deal he gets he has to return on the 19th and present the letter he has been given to ask for a delay up to the 31st of january. if they give it, that is fine, and if they don't give 31st of january he should return the decision back to parliament whether it is later , earlier or no delay. he is not allowed to negotiate the date. at the same time with this bill boy kinnock also managed to get an ammendment to the bill to publish the points of agreement between may and corbyn towards the end of her term. the talks concentrated on the aspect which guranteed the eu citizen rights in the uk, uk citizens in eu assuming the eu agree, protect the uk worker's rights and also uk jobs. parliament is going to solve this one way or another before the end of october and all options are on the table except no-deal..

lets face it corbyn is now in government and dictating to manchild.

his last threat was he was taking a chainsaw to the bill. corbyn bettwe wear a musk till the 19th of october

so really what they are averting is a crash by 31st of october, if manchild did not proroge the government they would not have done it. this leaves an all out attack on them on the 19th which will result in stopping crash and hold an election pr perhaps after an election cancel brexit altogether, who knows? anything is possbile .

[Lordo]

where is grumpy or londorake to expalin al this. i think they have lost the will to live.

[Pyrpolizer]

Hilary Benn explains the Bill on Twiter


2/8 The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that the UK does not leave the European Union on the 31 October without an agreement, unless Parliaments consents.


3/8 The Bill gives the Government time either to reach a new agreement with the European Union at the European Council meeting next month or to seek Parliament’s specific consent to leave the EU without a deal.


4/8 If neither of these two conditions have been met, however, by 19th October – ie the day after the European Council meeting concludes – then the Prime Minister must send a letter to the President of the European Council requesting an Article 50 extension until 31 January 2020.


5/8 The form of the letter is set out in a schedule to the Bill. If the European Council agrees to an extension to the 31 January 2020, then the Prime Minister must immediately accept that extension.


6/8 If the European Council proposes an extension to a different date then the Prime Minister must accept that extension within two days, unless the House of Commons rejects it.


7/8 The Bill has cross-party support from MPs who believe that the consequences of No Deal for the economy and the country would be highly damaging. No Deal is not in the national interest.

[Lordo]

is there an echo in this place

[cyprusgrump]

where is grumpy or londorake to expalin al this. i think they have lost the will to live.

I can't speak for Londonrake but I'm sitting here each day literally laughing out loud at the bullshit and false claims being posted!

We're going to have soooo much fun picking through this when it is all over!

[Pyrpolizer]

Yeah I 've seen people contributing only laughters.

[Lordo]

where is grumpy or londorake to expalin al this. i think they have lost the will to live.

I can't speak for Londonrake but I'm sitting here each day literally laughing out loud at the bullshit and false claims being posted!

We're going to have soooo much fun picking through this when it is all over!

are you sure it is not one of those nervous not sure smirk that you expressing.

and you can't divulge your thoughts on how your glorious leader manchild is performing so far as a leader. i mean unable to recite the caution the police read.
did you see how the yong cadettes found it so funny one collapsed from laughter.
it's not right is it?
i mean can you imagine, manchild disagrees with the law passed in both houses but it will not challenge it in court now it will wait till the 19th to challenge it hoping that the court case will last long neough to get us through no deal crash. it has not occured to them that after the 19th they will be removed from government in a very short time. how long does it take to decide who to put forward as a leader, 1, 2 3 days tops.

he is shackled hand an foot and he did it all by himself.